Peer review, ‘a mighty creator’ and an almighty row However the paper was only retracted for “a substantial overlap of the content of this article with previously published articles in other journals.”, not for the strange “mighty creator” line. Peer review isn’t perfect but you’d hope it would catch something like this.

First of all: thanks to the commenters/scientists (the online flash mobbers) for being the most efficient part of the science blogosphere! Although the paper was retracted from the online version of Proteomics, you can still make historical screenshots on the PubMed version. Blogosphere links in chronological order:

We have now a well-developed and sad case example of irresponsible scientific editing and publishing: the Warda-Han advanced online paper by the academic journal Proteomics: Mitochondria, the missing link between body and soul: Proteomic prospective evidence. What started as an abstract-based hunch and question about the quality of a recent review, addressed to and amplified… Continue reading The Warda-Han-Proteomics scandal: fingerprints of plagiarism, too

Creationism/intelligent design is not really an issue for me as I am a biologist working with mitochondria and stem cells, also a life extension supporter, whose angle on things and projections are based on the recent advancements in science and technology. As far as I know, creationism/ID neither suggests any new experiments or heuristic solutions… Continue reading The fingerprints of a mighty creator in Proteomics, impact factor >5